M/S Shri Krishna Infra Developers vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid for not filling Annexure 'C' was not justified, as the tender conditions did not mandate prior work with CSPDCL, and the petitioner had otherwise fulfilled the norms. However, the Court found that respondent No. 4 had fulfilled the requirements of the NIT, including the turnover criteria, by considering the total turnover in the preceding five financial years. Regarding the GSTR3B requirement, the Court reasoned that since a modified Annexure 'F' was uploaded and respondent No. 4 acted on that basis, the omission of GSTR3B in the modified Annexure 'F' meant that the requirement was dispensed with. The Court noted that the change in Annexure 'F' impliedly altered the 'important instructions/notes for e-bidding'. Furthermore, the Court considered that 70% of the work had already been completed by respondent No. 4, and the contract period was only four months. Given these circumstances and the delay in the petitioner filing an amendment application, the Court declined to interfere with the work order issued in favour of respondent No. 4 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Krishna Infra Developers, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its bid for a tender issued by Maa Mahamaya Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Maryadit (respondent No. 2 & 3). The petitioner's bid was rejected for not filling Annexure 'C', which required details of work completed or in hand for orders placed by CSPDCL. The petitioner also challenged the work order dated 15.06.2022 and agreement dated 17.06.2022 granted to respondent No. 4. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 4 did not meet the minimum turnover requirement and that Annexure 'F' submitted by respondent No. 4 was defective for not including the latest GST Return GSTR3B, despite it being listed as mandatory in the e-bidding instructions. The tender required a minimum turnover of Rs. 5 crores in the last five financial years and at least 04 switch yard erection and commissioning experience.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid solely on the ground of not filling Annexure 'C' was justified, considering the petitioner had submitted physical documents for switch yard experience and the tender conditions did not mandate prior work with CSPDCL? 2. Whether the bid of respondent No. 4 was liable to be cancelled due to non-submission of the latest GST Return GSTR3B, as stipulated in the e-bidding instructions, despite a modified Annexure 'F' dispensing with this requirement? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that its bid was wrongly rejected as it had fulfilled the requisite criteria, including the switch yard experience. It argued that respondent No. 4's bid was defective for not submitting the GSTR3B, which was a mandatory requirement in the e-bidding instructions, and that respondent No. 4 also did not meet the minimum turnover criteria. The petitioner claimed its bid was likely lower than respondent No. 4's. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that respondent No. 4 met the turnover criteria when considering the total turnover in the preceding five financial years, and that the modified Annexure 'F' impliedly dispensed with the GSTR3B requirement. They also submitted that 70% of the work had already been completed by respondent No. 4, and the contract period was short.